Thursday, November 18, 2010

American justice, Republican style

Tried! Mind you, I don't object to trying him, if it's got to be done to give satisfaction; and I'll be there, and chip in and help, too; but put it off till afternoon--put it off till afternoon, for I'll have my hands middling full till after the burying--"

"Didn't I say I was going to hang him? I never saw such people as you. What's the difference? You ask a favor, and then you ain't satisfied when you get it. Before or after's all one--you know how the trial will go.

--Mark Twain, Roughing It

But of course you can never depend on a jury to deliver that guilty verdict. A real jury in a real court in New York (not the kangaroo job that is a Military Commission in Gitmo) found Ahmed Ghailani guilty of one count of terrorist activity--and innocent of 284 others.

Yesterday's acquittal in a federal court ... is all the proof we need that the administration's approach to prosecuting terrorists has been deeply misguided and indeed potentially harmful as a matter of national security.

And here's another Republican a little unclear on the concept of justice--or perhaps very clear indeed:

“This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantanamo terrorists” in federal civilian courts, said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York. “We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantanamo.”

17 comments:

E2read
said...

Don't know how you can have a fair trial after 6 years of waiting + torture.

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

I don't think that what happened in New York was justice. The judge should have refused to participate in the travesty and should have ordered his immediate release. A number of others should have been arrested and charged with a series of charges - some more serious than the charge he was convicted of.

Darn those hypocritical Republicans for lamenting a failure to find a verdict they wanted.

"Some disturbing stats:A recent Toronto Star report looked at 3,400 investigations of police misconduct in Ontario over a 20-year period. In only 95 of those cases were criminal charges laid and only 16 officers were ever convicted. Only three of those went to jail."

More apples and irnages, but here, let me help. The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go. I don't like the current complaints-against-police system, because it's overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant.

Got that? "Overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant?" Good. Is the jury system equivalently "overwhelmingly stacked" against the Crown? If you think it is, prove it.

"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go. I don't like the current complaints-against-police system, because it's overwhelmingly stacked against the complainant."

So, paraphrasing you... what you are saying is that you don't like the system because it let's the police you "knew was guilty" go.

OK, I'll play poke-the-moron one more time before I get to the housework.

Changing the subject won't save you, Mark. You spoke of outcomes; now you speak of systems. You spoke of SIU stats; now it's the Gitmo kangaroos.

Try to get this through your head: there are good systems and stacked systems. I dislike the latter, and distrust their outcomes.

Why do you think the jury system, for all its flaws, is a stacked or corrupt system, as you are implying by putting it on all fours with the Gitmo kangaroo komissions and the SIU whitewash brigade? Please enlighten us.

"Why do you think the jury system, for all its flaws, is a stacked or corrupt system, as you are implying by putting it on all fours with the Gitmo kangaroo komissions and the SIU whitewash brigade?"

Why do you think the Gitmo proceedings were kangaroo commissions despite its flaws and why do you think the SIU, despite its flaws, is a whitewash brigade?

Because you don't agree with the outcome, perhaps?

Still not seeing a difference between you and the Repubs.

Perhaps if you examine your premise you'd begin to see your error.

"The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."

Then you admit this:"...the jury system, for all its flaws..."

Could "the Repubs" (whoever they are as you've lumped a large cross section of population together here) have examined the those flaws in this particular case and came to a conclusion that those flaws impeded a proper trial?

Now, if you wish to disagree with those conclusions on a point by point basis, I'd be fine with that. Isn't that what you are asking me to do for you given your continued defenses?

This is hilarious. You are making my point. You are trying to read the minds or your rivals and you are failing. I am not Mark.

You have also read the minds of tens of millions of people who identify themselves are Republicans and concluded collectively that "The Rethugs don't like the jury system, because it let someone they "knew was guilty" go."

"Why would the Rethugs prefer Gitmo over the ordinary jury system if they are on the same footing, as you have implied?"

Simple, they (whomever "they" are), like you, think that that system has fewer flaws because it comes to the right conclusion.

"Why would the Rethugs prefer Gitmo over the ordinary jury system if they are on the same footing, as you have implied?"

Simple, they (whomever "they" are), like you, think that that system has fewer flaws because it comes to the right conclusion.

Except that I can demonstrate that the jury system with proper rules of evidence is a better system that the Gitmo kangaroo courts. Care to argue the opposite?

I'm comparing systems, not outcomes. But suspiciously skewed outcomes do indicate what sort of system we are dealing with. 100% guilty? 100% innocent? That should be enough to raise questions. Except, it would seem, in your case.

The sources I quoted used the jury result to argue for returning the cases to military commissions.

Stop slipping and sliding. You know perfectly well why they wanted this. The defendant has far fewer constitutional protections before the commissions, and all sorts of tainted evidence--including evidence obtained through torture--is allowed in.